The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlternativeDavid
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

USA needs to significantly spend less

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
AlternativeDavid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 841 times Debate No: 60589
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

linate

Pro

our debt is out of control.
if you look at the experts, we see the congressional budget office, and plenty of current and former administraters in that and realted organizations that say the same thing. a noteable name comptroller david walker. our triple A rating has been downgraded a notch, and they warn us it could be more if we don't get our affairs in order. china is warning us that we need to get our affairs in order.
only people like paul krugman argue it is not a big deal. he probably does this mostly to be a contrarian and get attention. he argues for keysian econonomics, that we can grow ourselves out by spending more.

while keynesian econ has some merit to it, it's not applicable now. that theory says when we are in a recession we should spend so as to stimulate. now, we are not in recession, and while we are not optimal, i would argue it's the new normal. employment won't go down more, cause our economic structure doesn't need that many people working. and similar arguments could be made about other economic indicators.

the measure of how much we should spend is often GDP v debt. we are about 75% debt to GDP, and the highest it has been was around WWII. what makes now different, is that the country was developing, and had a marked advanged over less developed and war torn counties. that allowed them to pull themselves out of the mire. now, we dont have things like that to pull us out.

also, probably a better measure, is that we should compare debt to national revenue. if we continue to grow in debt, we revenue won't increase in proportion.

also, within maybe thirty or so years, interest on the debt will eat out much of other spending, even to the detriment of entitlement spending.

i'm not saying we are beyond the point of no return. but we are getting there. things need to shape up. we can't keep spending like a drunken sailor.
AlternativeDavid

Con

The topic of the debate is whether or not the United States of America needs to spend significantly less.

Definition of need: A requirement,necessary duty,or obligation [1]

If I can prove that it is neither required, necessary, nor an obligation to cut spending, Pro loses the debate.

Definition of significantly: in a sufficiently great or important way as to be worthy of attention [2]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"our debt is out of control"

Pro claims that our debt is out of control, yet states (at the end) "I'm not saying we are beyond the point of no return."This is a contradiction. Either we have control over the debt or we don't.


"the experts" "realted organizations" "they"

Who are these people that Pro is using as sources?

"only people like paul krugman argue it is not a big deal. he probably does this mostly to be a contrarian and get attention."

Pro is engaging in pure speculation here. Also, what defines being like Paul Krugman? Krugman has side burns, a small beard, and a mustache. He's also white and went to Yale. Is Pro claiming that only white Yale graduates with facial hair argue for Keynesian economics?

Jokes aside, Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist [3]. I'm inclined to take his word over Pro's word.

"what makes now different, is that the country was developing"

Is the country not developing anymore? Of course it is. This claim is ridiculous.

"if we continue to grow in debt, we revenue won't increase in proportion."

I take it Pro doesn't economics much.

"within maybe thirty or so years, interest on the debt will eat out much of other spending, even to the detriment of entitlement spending."

Proof?

"things need to shape up. we can't keep spending like a drunken sailor."

How much do drunken sailors spend? We can actually do math to figure this out. An E-1 Naval Officer in the United States Navy earns $1,447.20 per month [4]. That's $17,366.40 per year without bonuses or benefits. The average cost of a beer in the USA is around $3.82 [5]. In the United States, .08 is when you are legally considered drunk [6]. This number comes earlier or later for people of different weights. I'll assume that a Navy sailor will be larger than most males. Therefore I will determine that the sailor in question weighs 220 pounds (99.7 kg, 15.7 stone). It takes a 220 pound man 5 drinks (one shot of liquor, one glass of wine, one bottle of beer). to become legally drunk. Afterwords, it takes another five to reach a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) of .19. Any bartender worth his salt will cut off the sailor at this point. After adding the taxi fair (the sailor lives $8 fair away) to get home, that amounts to $27.10 respectively. That amounts to 0.0016% of his budget. Drunken sailors actually spend pretty responsibly.

Here comes the moment of truth. If I can find one single reasonable alternative to Pro's proposed spending cuts, I win the debate.

We should get tough on corporations. As a country, we lose billions of dollars on corporate tax evaders [7]. Many corporations store a lot of their money overseas, in order to avoid it being taxed. In fact, many companies pay no taxes whatsoever [8]. Even Mitt Romney has money in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes on it. Can anybody believe that he almost became president?

I argue that we close the loopholes. That will bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, without any spending cuts.

As we can see in this chart [9], 65% of all spending is mandatory spending like Medicare/Medicaid. Only 29% of all spending can be altered. Cutting the discretionary(alterable) budget has almost no impact on the debt. The way to save the economy is to increase revenue, not cut spending.

Obviously, we do not absolutely need to cut spending. Sorry Pro, but your claim has been disproven.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] https://www.google.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.ehow.com...
[5] http://www.pintprice.com...
[6] http://www.legalmatch.com...
[7] http://fortune.com...
[8] http://www.motherjones.com...
[9] https://static.nationalpriorities.org...
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

good info on our debt situation

http://www.greatreality.com...
AlternativeDavid

Con

Pro has not provided any new arguments in round 2. I shall consider this to be a forfeit and I hope voters do too. I extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

"Pro claims that our debt is out of control, yet states (at the end) "I'm not saying we are beyond the point of no return."This is a contradiction. Either we have control over the debt or we don't.

fair enough. i should have said we are 'getting' out of control with spending.

"the experts' 'they'

i didnt just refer to these people. i referred to the CBO, david, china, credit agencies, etc.

"a Nobel Prize winning economist"

i cited professional sources that include nobel prize winners. this is an appeal to authority from con.

'developed v developing'

it is not unheard of call the USA developed, as compared to other 'developing nations'. to apply that logic to whether we are different or not after WWII v now is not far fetched. con's contentions here are idiotic.

'drunken sailor'

con is taking a figure of speech too far. he's taking what should be obviously true, and twisting it, as he is basically doing with this whole debate. given it is obviously true that our spending habits as a nation is a problem.

suffice it to say, if we don't change our spending, our debt to GDP levels will be way out of whack and unprecedented. if we got to two hundred percent then what? it's just good common sense to stay within your means, yet con wants to argue that we aren't in troubled times, yet doesnt want to say when troubled times would actually exist. he avoids the issue. i know the onus is on me to make the case, but con is being lax and lazy if he takes that approach. as to a danger point, where is the magic line, where is the cut off an why, if not now or sooner than later? and why not sooner than later?
AlternativeDavid

Con

"This is an appeal to authority from con."

Of course it is. Who would you trust to perform surgery on you? An award winning doctor, or some guy with an opinion on how you should be cut open?

"Con's contentions here are idiotic."

Ouch. I wasn't aware that not being familiar with a certain phrase meant I was an idiot. Is it too hard to explain what the phrase means? Pro stated that "it's not unheard of". That doesn't mean that there aren't people who haven't heard it.

"He's taking what should be obviously true, and twisting it, as he is basically doing with this whole debate. Given it is obviously true that our spending habits as a nation is a problem."

This debate is not about whether or not our spending habits are a problem. This debate is whether or not we need to spend significantly less. I'm debating against the resolution, not Pro's claims. By the way, Pro has not provided a real argument during this entire debate.

"It's just good common sense to stay within your means, yet con wants to argue that we aren't in troubled times, yet doesnt want to say when troubled times would actually exist."

First off get that straw man out of here. I never said we are not in troubled times. I offered an alternative to cutting spending. Also, why would I say when troubled times exist? That's the job of Pro to introduce that argument.

"he avoids the issue"

Where did I avoid the issue?

"I know the onus is on me to make the case,"

Yes it is.

"but con is being lax and lazy if he takes that approach"

What?

"as to a danger point, where is the magic line, where is the cut off an why, if not now or sooner than later? and why not sooner than later?"

There is no magic line. Frankly I believe in more taxes to help the economy become solvent, but that is a debate for another time.

In summary, I believe that Pro has not met his burden of proof that "USA needs to significantly spend less." I offered an alternative solution, and given the fact that Pro has not refuted the alternative solution, it still stands.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by linate 2 years ago
linate
my apologies. i meant to post that newest argument here in the comments.
Posted by linate 2 years ago
linate
more on our debt and how to fix it

http://www.halfbakedlunatic.com...
Posted by linate 2 years ago
linate
some info on public debt

http://www.pewresearch.org...
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
We, the U.S.A. , & Obama & his Gang are 3 different things.
Obama & his Gang have an OFFICIAL Debt of over $17.6 Trillion, & Going Up.
Economic experts, such as Professor Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University, state that their ACTUAL Debt, because of their Unfunded & Off-Budget Liabilities & Obligations, is over $235 Trillion, & Going Up.
They have virtually ZERO $ for anything whatsoever.
They not only have been BANKRUPT for decades, they've been operating way in the red, head- over- heels in debt, & they have a huge, & increasing, budget deficit. Sick Willie lied his head off.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
You are such an idiot. They are covering up their flaws just like a business pretends they don't have an infestation.

You're the reason why nothing in this world gets done. You believe everything you read like a sheep.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
"Examples of Nominated Individuals Who Did Not Receive the Nobel Peace Prize (1901-1950)
The three most common searches on individuals in the Nobel Peace Prize nomination database, are Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi and Joseph Stalin."

This is literally from the Nobel Prize website. http://www.nobelprize.org...

I'm done replying to this. Aerogant refuses to listen.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
You're so wrong, it hurts me.

Hitler got it.

Stalin got it.

Obama got it.

Putin got it.

It just goes right over your head. The joke you have is you being a joke for falling for it. People say things like that when they cannot believe it themselves, so they spread misinformation when in actuality this isn't just one case.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
You're so wrong, it hurts me.

Hitler got it.

Stalin got it.

Obama got it.

Putin got it.

It just goes right over your head. The joke you have is you being a joke for falling for it. People say things like that when they cannot believe it themselves, so they spread misinformation when in actuality this isn't just one case.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
Hitler was nominated as a joke by somebody on the committee. He never won the prize.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Are you that dense? Hitler, a man that did what he did, won a type of prize from nobel for peace. This is to say that their priorities are wrong and are a terrible example for an argument.

He won the nobel peace prize. It's still nobel - it's still a prize. He won something when he was a mad man. The economist you're defending may as well be a mad man as well. I mean, it's not far from it when you see that he doesn't seem to care that were' in a 16,000,000,000,000 debt.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
linateAlternativeDavidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's attempt to shift the burden of proof onto Con and call him "lazy". For that I award conduct. And because of that (failed) shifting, Pro never really justified his own position sufficiently. It's not on Con to make the case for you, or to tell you where the "line" is. It's on you, Pro, to make your own case coherently--he only has to *respond* to your attempts to do so. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.